Southern California Gas Company v. Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132, Afl-Cio

Good Law
2001 Daily Journal DAR 9787·265 F.3d 787·2001 WL 1020253·168 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2206·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7913
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 7, 200198-56842California23,067 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Brunetti, J.

Opinion by Judge BRUNETTI; Dissent by Judge ALARCON.

In this case, two utility workers were terminated after their company learned from its medical review officer, whom the company believed was a licensed physician, that both workers had failed federally-required random drug tests. Shortly thereafter, the medical review officer was arrested for impersonating a licensed physician. Once the workers’ union learned that the medical review officer was an imposter, it pressed for the workers’ reinstatement. The company refused and arbitration ensued pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the company and the union. The arbitrator found in the workers’ favor and ordered them reinstated. Dissatisfied with this result, the company asks us to vacate the arbitration award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Under well-established principles affording us an extremely limited role in reviewing arbitration awards, we refuse to disturb the arbitrator’s decision and thus affirm.

I.

Appellants Lorenza Wilson (“Wilson”) and Gerry Daniel (“Daniel”) are members of the Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local 132 (“the Union”). As members of the Union, they are…

dissent Opinion

Alarcon, J.

dissenting:

The majority’s holding today upholds the unconditional reinstatement of two confirmed drug users to their safety-sensitive positions as pipeline crew assistants for Southern California Gas Company. Because this result directly conflicts with the clear language of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and violates firmly established public policies against such reinstatement, I respectfully dissent.

I

The following facts are undisputed. Southern California Gas Company (“Company”) hired Lorenza Wilson (“Wilson”) and Gerry Daniel (“Daniel”) in 1983 and 1984 respectively. In 1990, the Company implemented random drug testing of its employees, to be conducted pursuant to Department of Transportation (“DOT”) regulations. The Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132, AFL-CIO (“Union”), reserved the right to arbitrate any allegations that the random drug test policy violated DOT regulations. The Union and the Company subsequently agreed that employees shall be terminated immediately after “their first positive test, on random or for cause, with no offer of rehabilitation being extended unless the employee has 15 or more years of service with the Company. In those…

Opinion

265 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 2001) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 132, AFL-CIO, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. No. 98-56842 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted March 6, 2001 Filed September 7, 2001 [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Timothy S. Lykowski, Esq., Los Angles, California, for the appellant. Glenn Rothner, Esq., Pasadena, California, for the appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Lourdes G. Baird, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-98-03442-LGB Before: Alarcon, Brunetti, and Hawkins, Circuit Judges. Brunetti, Circuit Judge 1 Opinion by Judge Brunetti; Dissent by Judge Alarcon 2 In this case, two utility workers were terminated after their company learned from its medical review officer, whom the company believed was a licensed physician, that both workers had failed federally-required random drug tests. Shortly thereafter, the medical review officer was arrested for impersonating a licensed physician. Once the workers' union learned that the medical review officer was an imposter, it pressed for the workers' reinstatement. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.